Nope...don't watch CNN...I follow and read many legal scholars and attorneys who actually practice law and have been admitted to hold cases for the Supreme Court. Both conservative and liberal. They provide plenty of insight into the rulings whether they agree or disagree with them. You on the other hand appear to get your information off the side of the happy meal box.
SCOTUS Rules You Can Refuse Service to Same-Sex Couples
- Thread starter CrittendenWildcat
- Start date
Ironically, The Notorious RBG did more to advance the cause of conservatism at SCOTUS than Scalia ever did.
According to the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, no business serving the public can discriminate because of a customer's national origin, sex, religion, color, or race. This applies even if it's a private business. https://www.nextinsurance.com/blog/right-to-refuse-service-to-rude-customers/
Regarding the courts decision. I think it's mostly right. A business should not be forced to provide a serice that requires them to engage in an activity contrary to their religion, however if it's just a matter of selling a T-shirt, or mowing someone's lawn, there should be no right of refusal.
Oh my gosh. Did you really just present this analogy? It’s important to me that you realize this analogy is ridiculous.
You just wait and see. Someone will use this ruling to do just that. The SCOTUS will let them if their recent track record is any indication.
You’re a clown and have no idea what I do within jurisprudence actions or motions but you keep following your lib hero legal reps “that hold cases for the SC” what a joke
I did and I stand by it. Privately owned hospitals are for profit businesses and many communities only have that hospital. This ruling opens the door for them to deny service to people because of religious beliefs.
Ok let’s look at it a different way. Sally is working the admission desk and refuses to assist a gay male due to her religious beliefs. As a result, he doesn’t get the medical care he needs and dies. While it might be far fetched, a ruling like this opens the door for these things to happen.
Medical personnel are bound by a hypocratic oath. This goes beyond private vs public. A doctor would lose their license.
Plus we’re not talking about being refused a “gay cake”. We’re talking medically-(possibly life) saving treatments.
You can’t refuse service or kick someone out of your store based on race, orientation etc of the customer. You can, however refuse to create a product that you believe isn’t in line with your business. I’m not sure why this is so confusing.
Hank Camacho posted the CR act of 1964 which spells this out. Also preceded by this great speech—by a president who didn’t know he had only 5+ months to live.
Last edited:
Problem arises when it's an essential business and the only business in the area that services those needs.
Like say you're in a rural area with a hospital and there isn't another emergency room within 60 miles.
What if that hospital decides to enact a policy they aren't going to provide medical services for gay people? People will die because the hospital doesn't want to provide medical services for them.
Actually, that's what this very court decision allows. Sexual orientation is a protected class under federal law. So long as your religious beliefs are gay people are bad you can deny services to them.
My point is that some bigoted A-hole is going to use this ruling to justify doing something like a mentioned and he will have a much better chance to win because of this ruling. Again where do we draw the line? I have no confidence in this SCOTUS to know where it should be drawn. There are protected classes for a reason and this ruling made all of it much more cloudy.
This is a good take. I think we need to differentiate between creating a product and providing a straightforward service.
You should look at Florida where it's legal to deny medical services to transgender people and people aren't losing their medical licenses for denying service to them.
and that bigoted a-hole will be sued (rightfully so), lose their license and be shamed. I wouldn’t visit any medical clinic that would willfully do that.
Last edited:
So you're saying it should be legal to violate federal law so long as it's because of religion?As it should be
Again, those patients are allowed by law to visit that office and be treated with bwhatever services are provided.
Good: Transgender person not refused service for a broken arm.
Bad: Transgender person refused service for a broken arm because they are transgender.
You talking about the law that posters educated you on above when you raised an illogical hypothetical?
Ahhhhh, good to see liberals acting hysterical and saying this is a slippery slope just like conservatives wigging out about gay marriage or transgenders playing sports 
. As much as you guys think you’re so different all you dipshit political people are the same
. As much as you guys think you’re so different all you dipshit political people are the sameOdd that the usuals are whining about arguments that are going to be made using this opinion as precedent, yet not one of them has cited a single word from the opinion they think would be used to support the arguments they’re worried about.
It’s almost like they haven’t even read the opinion. Hmm.
It’s almost like they haven’t even read the opinion. Hmm.
Sexual orientation is a protected class, but that's not the end of the analysis. You have to weigh their rights against the First Amendment right of freedom of religion and freedom of expression of creators of works for hire. Forcing creators to violate their own religious beliefs not only violates the First Amendment, you could also argue it is a form of involuntary servitude that violates the 13th Amendment.
The funniest thing that gets lost in this (by the left, of course), is that the bakery never denied basic "service". They were fine selling a cake to a gay couple.
What they weren't going to do, was make a specifically pro-gay cake in their designs. The left got pissy that their side wasn't able to force their life style and demands on the bakery.
What they weren't going to do, was make a specifically pro-gay cake in their designs. The left got pissy that their side wasn't able to force their life style and demands on the bakery.
If you want to start a business and deny service to straight people based on sexual orientation, I will sue you and base my entire legal argument on the holding in 303 Creative LLC v Elenis. That’s how dumb your argument is.
“States may ‘protect gay persons, just as [they] can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public. And there are innumerable goods and services that no one could argue implicate the First Amendment.”
So she thinks you can say what you feel but cannot peacefully act upon it. What a dystopia that would be.
And there's a perfect example of a far-left liberal who has the entire situation wrong. Not shocked to see who it is, either.
No..She is saying that the first amendment protects and allows individuals to say discriminatory things but it doesn't let you use those discriminatory beliefs as a means to refuse service as a business which is protected under the Civil Rights Act...Her interpretation is that creating a website doesn't fall under first amendment expression but falls under providing goods/services...The conservatives felt it did fall under the first amendment. Neither group is wrong as they just interpret things differently. The conservatives all agreed so they had the majority so that was the ruling.
I don’t know why this is even a matter of left and right. It’s logic. You don’t deny your service to someone because of orientation , race etc. Likewise, you can’t dictate the type of services a merchant provides. Let the marketplace tell the merchant if he made a mistake.
Anybody can just create a religion and it is just as valid legally as Christianity. This ruling makes it pretty clear that gay people can be refused service
If I were to create a religion that says that it's not ok to be straight and then use that religion for my argument for why I won't serve straight people then I am now well within my rights to do so.
Please explain it to me then. Religious freedom trumps all right? So why can't I create a religion that says that being straight is wrong and then use that to not serve straight people?
Thats a little simplistic...This case about the web designer even if the case wasn't real...Her good is a website and her service is designing that website...She denied the customer both the good and the service due to sexual orientation. If you want to argue that a service is covered under the 1st Amendment like SCOTUS did, then she has the right to deny designing that website. What if they designed it themselves and they want her to give them the "good" of the website? Is that still covered under this ruling? All throughout this thread, it has been universally agreed upon that a you shouldn't be able to deny a good based on one of the protected classes, yet this case they do that as well as denying a service. Where is the line?